Dean is first!

Dean is first!

Looks like we have a spammer!

What awful thing is Bush hiding? Why can't he release ANY unclassified files Congress requests about anything?

Will Bolton have to leave in January when his temp job runs out? Or will Congress be in recess again and Bush will extend his consulting job yet again? Does Bolton's vote at the UN count if he isn't officially approved by the Senate. Will the rest of the diplomatic corps consider him a legitimate appointment?

What awful thing is Bush hiding? Why can't he release ANY unclassified files Congress requests about anything?

Will Bolton have to leave in January when his temp job runs out? Or will Congress be in recess again and Bush will extend his consulting job yet again? Does Bolton's vote at the UN count if he isn't officially approved by the Senate. Will the rest of the diplomatic corps consider him a legitimate appointment?

Sorry about the double post. I got that error report thing, too.

The one thing that can't be hidden about Bolton is his incompetence. He has been a road block in every job he has had in recent years, and not so hot before that, either.

But, incompetence seems to be the watchword for the Bushies.

This appointment has nothing to do with legal or illegal. THIS is what it has to do with. He goes into this International position, without Senate approval, and will be viewed as "Damaged Goods" by the world.

WASHINGTON -- Even as it appeared likely President Bush would name John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador, possibly today, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd on Sunday waged a highly public last-minute effort to convince Bush the appointment is a terrible idea.

Dodd, D-Conn., has led Senate opposition to the controversial former State Department official, calling him unqualified for the job.

The senator on Sunday told Fox News that Bolton was "damaged goods."

In an interview Friday, Dodd said the appointment would be "a huge mistake" and later issued a statement saying Bolton had given "incomplete, if not false, information to the Senate" about his government activity.

Link

And I remember the Clinton era only too clearly. Clinton had NO Choice. The Republicans were hell bent on denying ANY choices of his, even if he had nominated Jesus ! They fought every single issue tooth and nail. Only too bad Clinton could not have used his authority to get thru the rest of his adjenda. There would be NO health issue in America anymore, for one thing.

It is absurd for Bush to use this opportunity for a recess appointment. We cannot send an ambassador to the U.N. that does not have the support of our Congress. I think this, more than anything, shows an utter lack of respect for the U.N. and that Bush is not prepared to treat them like a real organization. Rather, he's willing to send this man, who is damaged goods, without even the will of Congress behind it.

It's time for the people to realize the truth: Republicans filibustered and threatened to filibuster so many of Clinton's appointments. When they were in power, they voted against many of them and prevented his ability to have his own representatives in high positions. So when people complain "Bush has the 'right' to have his representatives", it is pure hypocrisy. Too bad the "common person" never sees the truth as this administration continues to lie and hide it.

More likely, the Bush Administration is trying to provide with the protective cover of diplomatic imunity so when the prosecutors start issuing subpoenas and warrants, he can hide out in some foreign country and won't have to answer embarrassing questions.

So, really, the question of the day should be what is Bush trying to hide by sticking Bolton in the UN Ambassador slot? How many more slots does he have to hide the rest of the gangsters that have been covering up for him?

Seems like Bolton is part of the Plame cover-up for which Judith Miller is sitting in jail. Or is it protective custody?

More likely, the Bush Administration is trying to provide Bolton with the protective cover of diplomatic imunity so when the prosecutors start issuing subpoenas and warrants, he can hide out in some foreign country and won't have to answer embarrassing questions.

So, really, the question of the day should be what is Bush trying to hide by sticking Bolton in the UN Ambassador slot? How many more slots does he have to hide the rest of the gangsters that have been covering up for him?

Seems like Bolton is part of the Plame cover-up for which Judith Miller is sitting in jail. Or is it protective custody?

George II's first really truly Imperial Decree. Really, it's a big day when George II says "F-it, if I'm gonna be king, I better start acting like it."

US CONSTITUTION
Article II Section 2.
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: ">" (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PHRASE)

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Does anyone remember specifically giving away their Congressional authority to the president to appoint someone during their recess? Because if they didn't then the president has violated the constitution...

An election of the president does not constitute such a consent to hand Congressional authority to the president. If it does, then this constitutes a complete nullification of the constitution.

If of course, by "by and with the advise and consent of the Senate" is to mean that the president gets to make such a recess appointment because he was elected president, then this is strictly wrong. Firstly, because the Senate does not elect the president; they elect the vice-president and the House elects the president. But even if this "mandate" DID constitute a Congressional consent to hand over their power, then this would render the Constitution null and void from the moment that the president takes the oath of office, for acceptance of the Constitution by the president means that separation of powers is eliminated.

So what I want to know is, where is the explicit statement from both Houses of Congress (the House, and the Senate) explicitly granting the power and the authority to the president to make this recess appointment?

Sure, the Congress is Republican-Controlled and it would make sense, that some would probably argue in favor of Republicans instead of the Constitution and the American people. Democrats have known this for the last 30 years at least.

But it is quite easy (or so one would think) for a majority Congress to create an explicit statement granting absolute presidential power until the end of the term to appoint members of government, and even members of the Supreme Court. The president can avoid John Roberts' confirmation and appoint him directly during recess if Congress grants the president such power. Do you think they'll do that? I hope they don't…

But this raises an even bigger question of Constitutional crisis. Since Congress (both the Senate and the House) is obliged to vest their power in the president so he can make a recess appointment, what is the means by which they can do this? It is never specified in the Constitution. The Senate is a deliberative body whereas the House operates on majority-rule. So what is the means by which Congress, as a collective body, may vest the nomination power with the president?

Secondly, the Congress doesn't even have to give the president the nomination power. If Congress has a reason to distrust the president's fitness to make a nomination, whatever that reason may be (CIA/National Security Leak/Iraq/No WMD's) then Congress is within their rights to give nomination power to any department head, say, like Condoleeza Rice (who detested Bolton from the start because she feared he might be made Deputy State Secretary and she'd have to take his abuse daily), or the Supreme Court if Congress so chooses.

US CONSTITUTION
Article II Section 2.
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: ">" (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PHRASE)

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Does anyone remember specifically giving away their Congressional authority to the president to appoint someone during their recess? Because if they didn't then the president has violated the constitution...

An election of the president does not constitute such a consent to hand Congressional authority to the president. If it does, then this constitutes a complete nullification of the constitution.

If of course, by "by and with the advise and consent of the Senate" is to mean that the president gets to make such a recess appointment because he was elected president, then this is strictly wrong. Firstly, because the Senate does not elect the president; they elect the vice-president and the House elects the president. But even if this "mandate" DID constitute a Congressional consent to hand over their power, then this would render the Constitution null and void from the moment that the president takes the oath of office, for acceptance of the Constitution by the president means that separation of powers is eliminated.

So what I want to know is, where is the explicit statement from both Houses of Congress (the House, and the Senate) explicitly granting the power and the authority to the president to make this recess appointment?

Sure, the Congress is Republican-Controlled and it would make sense, that some would probably argue in favor of Republicans instead of the Constitution and the American people. Democrats have known this for the last 30 years at least.

But it is quite easy (or so one would think) for a majority Congress to create an explicit statement granting absolute presidential power until the end of the term to appoint members of government, and even members of the Supreme Court. The president can avoid John Roberts' confirmation and appoint him directly during recess if Congress grants the president such power. Do you think they'll do that? I hope they don't…

But this raises an even bigger question of Constitutional crisis. Since Congress (both the Senate and the House) is obliged to vest their power in the president so he can make a recess appointment, what is the means by which they can do this? It is never specified in the Constitution. The Senate is a deliberative body whereas the House operates on majority-rule. So what is the means by which Congress, as a collective body, may vest the nomination power with the president?

Secondly, the Congress doesn't even have to give the president the nomination power. If Congress has a reason to distrust the president's fitness to make a nomination, whatever that reason may be (CIA/National Security Leak/Iraq/No WMD's) then Congress is within their rights to give nomination power to any department head, say, like Condoleeza Rice (who detested Bolton from the start because she feared he might be made Deputy State Secretary and she'd have to take his abuse daily), or the Supreme Court if Congress so chooses.

US CONSTITUTION
Article II Section 2.
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: ">" (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PHRASE)

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Does anyone remember Congress explicitly giving away their Congressional authority to the president to appoint someone during their recess? Because if they didn't then the president has violated the constitution...

If of course, by "by and with the advise and consent of the Senate" is to mean that the president gets to make such a recess appointment because he was elected president, then this is strictly wrong. Firstly, because the Senate does not elect the president; they elect the vice-president and the House elects the president. But even if this "mandate" DID constitute a Congressional consent to hand over their power, then this would render the Constitution null and void from the moment that the president takes the oath of office, for acceptance of the Constitution by the president means that separation of powers is eliminated.

So what I want to know is, where is the explicit statement from both Houses of Congress (the House, and the Senate) explicitly granting the power and the authority to the president to make this recess appointment?

Sure, the Congress is Republican-Controlled and it would make sense, that some would probably argue in favor of Republicans instead of the Constitution and the American people. Democrats have known this for the last 30 years at least.

But it is quite easy (or so one would think) for a majority Congress to create an explicit statement granting absolute presidential power until the end of the term to appoint members of government, and even members of the Supreme Court. The president can avoid John Roberts' confirmation and appoint him directly during recess if Congress grants the president such power. Do you think they'll do that? I hope they don't…

But this raises an even bigger question of Constitutional crisis. Since Congress (both the Senate and the House) is obliged to vest their power in the president so he can make a recess appointment, what is the means by which they can do this? It is never specified in the Constitution. The Senate is a deliberative body whereas the House operates on majority-rule. So what is the means by which Congress, as a collective body, may vest the nomination power with the president?

Secondly, the Congress doesn't even have to give the president the nomination power. If Congress has a reason to distrust the president's fitness to make a nomination, whatever that reason may be (CIA/National Security Leak/Iraq/No WMD's) then Congress is within their rights to give nomination power to any department head, say, like Condoleeza Rice (who detested Bolton from the start because she feared he might be made Deputy State Secretary and she'd have to take his abuse daily), or the Supreme Court if Congress so chooses.

Bolton, because he's a recess appointment, will only be at the UN till 2007. WHAT changes can he implement in that short period of time? My guess is that since he intercepted so many reports, memos, etc...he has dirt on the administration to get that appointment (especially since his former boss...Powell said he was a wrong choice for the post. Either that...or like others who have been given promotions before by Bush (or Medals of Freedoom) he progressed the party agenda.

This guy couldn't get out of the nomination committee with a recommendation!

Bolton, because he's a recess appointment, will only be at the UN till 2007. WHAT changes can he implement in that short period of time? My guess is that since he intercepted so many reports, memos, etc...he has dirt on the administration to get that appointment (especially since his former boss...Powell said he was a wrong choice for the post. Either that...or like others who have been given promotions before by Bush (or Medals of Freedoom) he progressed the party agenda.

This guy couldn't get out of the nomination committee with a recommendation!

sorry for multiples, web error.

If you recall in the Election of 2000, this was the same sort of clause used by the Supreme Court to claim that it had the right to elect George W. Bush. Then again, if the Supreme Court took on that right, it would have been constitutional, but only with an explicit statement of consent from Congress granting them the authority.

GWB and Bolton sure scurried out of the Roosevelt room after the announcement purdy dern quick, didn't they? Why not field ANY questions regarding the recess appointment of such an important position? Not even a Jeff Gannon to lob softballs over the plate! He went on about Bolton's mother taking him to the library when he was a boy...what does THAT have to do with the price of tea in China??

"but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

This statement was cut from my email message above

US CONSTITUTION
Article II Section 2.
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: “but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.” (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PHRASE)

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Russell_K,

You're not being totally honest....Bolton had the required votes in the Senate to get confirmed. All he needed was a simple majority.

Thanks.

Posted by Ace1 on August 1, 2005 at 10:29 AM

----------------------------------------

Ace1,

You're not being honest at all!

Bolton did not have the required votes! Some of the information to make an informed decision was held back by Bush. Once revealed, Republicans could very well, and most likely would have voted against Bolton.

That is why Bush held back the information. That is why he did an end around the Senate.

Installing Bolton was Bush's Nuclear Option.

Now it is time for the Democrats in Congress to finally grow some spines and shut down the government until Rove and Libby are fired and until impeachment proceedings are brought against both Bush and Cheney.

More likely, the Bush Administration is trying to provide Bolton with the protective cover of diplomatic imunity so when the prosecutors start issuing subpoenas and warrants, he can hide out in some foreign country and won't have to answer embarrassing questions.

So, really, the question of the day should be what is Bush trying to hide by sticking Bolton in the UN Ambassador slot? How many more slots does he have to hide the rest of the gangsters that have been covering up for him?

Seems like Bolton is part of the Plame cover-up for which Judith Miller is sitting in jail. Or is it protective custody?

Kevin...true, but I think the plan for keeping them off the front page was put in motion by Rummy's trip to Iraq recently. Besides Rummy's imitation of Cinderella's wicked stepmother(we'll be leaving Iraq, IF...), it was announced that the trial for Saddam will be in Oct. Is it coincidence that Oct. is when Fitzgeralds' investigation is set to wrap up? Hardly.

People are bombarded by the disappearance of a pretty young blonde missing in Aruba(no offense to her family)...rather than the corruption and blatant disregard for accountability it their gov't.

Unless it is to be implicitly interpreted, rather than explicitly interpreted, the Constitution grants the president the power to make recess appointments. But since this contradicts another element of Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, then this contradiction would render section 2 invalid.

Unless of course, we can conclude that a Congressional recess does NOT implicitly give the president Congressional consent to make appointments in their absence, which means that even during a recess, a president is constrained from making an appointment without explicit consent from Congress.

But even still, Congress has the power to vest nomination power with the courts of law or heads of executive departments if they don't trust the president making a nomination in their absence. That the president has proceeded without explicit Congressional consent can only mean that the president has violated the Constitution.

Recall that those powers not specifically granted the federal government devolves upon the states. So, if Congress does not explicitly grant the president the power to make appointments of inferior officers during their recess, then only the states can vote on making those appointments.

Alexander..then you would have to go back and say the same to all other presidents who have made recess appointments. Even though it is a HORRIBLE choice to put Bolton in that position, and especially in this manner...Bush isn't the first to have used that right.

Posted by Alexander on August 1, 2005 at 11:07 AM

No, it can also mean that the Congress hasn't been doing its job and acting like rubber stamps which, in this instance, just happened to run out of ink.

Bolton at the UN is a farce. No less farcical than Krushchov's shoe. We can only hope that the nations of the world will demonstrate their disdain and shun this clown.

Who knows...perhaps when the trasongate scandal blows open and engulfs Bolton as well as Rove et al...it will FINALLY be the wake-up call to Bush supporters of his utter incompetance. For Bush to claim that he doesn't know what is going on in an investigation involving his senior staff (after 2 years) is ludicris! For him to PROMOTE someone involved in treasonous activities is treason in itself.

Wow, if this is a diversionary tactic, it's a pretty crappy one. How much do you want to be there are rovegate questions a'plenty at the next press conference?

Posted by mammalicious on August 1, 2005 at 11:11 AM

Once again, the traditional/conservative argument that "that's the way it's always been done" doesn't mean it's right or legal. If there are glaring contradictions which seriously undermines and jeopardizes the integrity of the constitution and our democracy, then the people have a right to know about it, debate it, and change it.

That this has gone unnoticed before speaks to a grave apathy. This is the document we all love and respect, and have done so for well over 220 years. If we truly love it and respect it, and are sworn to upholding it, then we ought to make sure it is as clean, tight, and universally comprehensible as possible.

I do NOT support hidden clauses and combinations of clauses that "implicityly" give anyone authority. It shouldn't be a dirty trick/trump card for anyone to use. We should know fully about all that our government can do and take seriously our duty to oversee the smooth and proper functioning of government, and restrict it where we feel it endangers our freedom.

I actually think this may be a "nothing left to loose" act. King George II's approval ratings are in the toilet, a majority (51%)of the country thinks he lied to get us into war, maybe he's just given up even trying not to appear imperial. Of course, maybe he's trying to provoke some sort of retaliation from the Democratic members of congress. Maybe he WANTS Roberts nomination blocked to he can jump up and down and say, "see, they just try to block everybody." Who knows what leaks in the mind of the eeee-veeel boy genius behind the throne.

Posted by nyeiren on August 1, 2005 at 11:46 AM

Well, by Article II, section 2 of the Constitution (posted multiple times above) the president does not even need to go through the consent/confirmation process. He can wait until Congress takes a vacation and then fill all the vacancies he wants until the end of the next congressional term, including the Supreme Court.

If this is what the original framers intended then why is it that they put the phrase

"but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

in there if they did not want to make sure that powers of the president and the Congress were not blurred? If the Congress felt that the president was going to obscure the law and retain powers he did not have, then Congress could just as easily ask State Department Secretary Rice to make the nomination, or any of a number of courts to make the nomination. Congress has that authority.

That they don't use it to protect the nation during the vacations is completely incomprehensible to me. And that Congress doesn't cry bloody murder when the president makes those appointments is still further boggling.

Either the power of Congress to vest nomination power is unconstitutional, or the president's ability to make recess appointments without explicit Congressional authority is unconstitutional. Debate and choose.

Personally, I would like the whole body of Congress to vote on nominations and in whom they would want to vest nomination power, instead of one arrogant man drunk with power to unilaterally make the choice without Congressional approval...

Are these guys crazy or what?

Personally, I would like the whole body of Congress to vote on nominations and in whom they would want to vest nomination power, instead of one arrogant man drunk with power to unilaterally make the choice without Congressional approval...

Are these guys crazy or what?

nyeiren...but when has Scotty answered any questions about the ''ongoing investigation?'' The question that needs asked is why the president hasn't acted on executive order 12958, that calls for sanctions of an official who leaks classified information (as Rove admitted to talking to Cooper) NEGILENTLY?? This is something SEPARATE from any criminal investigation or indictment...which has a tougher standard to meet.

Even in law enforcement...one is suspended PENDING the outcome of an investigation. If the person IS guilty...it is gross negligence to have allowed them continued access to sensitive material, while facts are being sorted out!

The president is bound, by this executive order, to take action SEPERATELY from any criminal matters. Why won't reporters ask about this and hammer this point home?

But if the president's authority to make recess appointments is valid, it is valid only because his recess appointments last only until the end of the Congressional term. This may account for why president's typically don't appoint Supreme court nominees (though I wouldn't put it past this president to do it...).

But even still, why would Congress take such a casual, lazy, and apathetic attitude towards nominations and trust the president to be moderate, good, and just, especially when he's shown himself to be untrustworthy and a liar.

Clearly Congress needs to take fewer vacations and do their jobs better. If they're too old and tired to get the job done, then it may be better for the country that they not seek re-election in favor of persons who may more faithfully preserve, protect, and defend...

Alexander...you are requesting that the Congress which is controlled by the same party that holds the Whitehouse do that?

As expected, President Bush Monday morning made a recess appointment of John Bolton to the post of UN ambassador for the United States. This, despite Bolton's inability to get Senate approval, his lie regarding his testimony in the Plame affair, and the possibility of his own involvement in a White House orchestrated smear campaign against the Wilsons. Bush's move, though, may be less about his famed loyalty or legendary intransigence, and more a diversion designed to distract attention from his scandal-plagued White House.

Call it chaos theory or simply a smoke-screen. By whatever name, the President is banking we'll be discussing John Bolton and not Karl Rove. And there's nothing we can do about, not at least, til the mid-term elections of 2006.

For the full story, see:

"Chaos Theory: Bush & the Bolton Diversion"

The Congress has a Constitutionally-bound duty that is supposed to be completely independent of the president's duty.

That the Congress has turned it over to the president -- or rather, that the president has stolen it, but the Congress were too lazy to hit the alarm -- speaks only to the great failure of our Congress to protect the American people and do their duty.

Now they're asking for pay raises and more vacation time?? Are you kidding me?

They were hellbent on this war. Bush first discusses fixing info with the Brits, see Memogate. Bolton insisted information on WMD be fixed. Ambassador Wilson refused to lie, and Rove attempted to fix Wilson, committing treason in the process. I don't think I can be more disgusted by this Administration, but I have faith they will prove me wrong. I cringe at the thought of what they will do next, but my mind is incapable of thinking in their terms of self-interest with callous disreagrd for anyone else/

That is why Bill Frist and Tom DeLay are some of the most shameful Congressional representatives in the history of this nation. Blind support of the president without one criticism. And the senator was going to change the rules of the Senate to further give away power to the president. And what of this "war-time" BS? The president lied to get us into the war -- power granted by Congress UNANIMOUSLY (well, except for Congresswoman Barbara Lee of Oakland, California).

Complete failure of Government. We are not free in this country, if ever we were...

The mess is so profound that we may have to demand the dissolution of Government and the Constitution in favor of creating a new one...

Short of this, what other recourse do the people have to protect themselves from Government, since the government is only concerned with pay raises and vacations, lying, deception, and betrayal?

Unfortunately they put party above country. But they were VOTED in by their constituents that know their records...and as well, the apathy of others that figured their vote wouldn't matter, those who abstained from the process. The Congressmen, therefore feel they are doing what they do with the approval of those they claim to represent.

Well, I give a huge amount of credit to the Democrats for trying to do the right thing and fight this nomination, but clearly there is no stopping the tyranny of the majority, even if they have to subvert the Constitution to do it. Clearly Democrats are learning a hard lesson that law doesn't seem to matter when they are dedicated to fighting by the law and the Republicans are committed to breaking it to get what they want...

Apathy is the true enemy of democracy.

well said.

But the fact remains that the president is only allowed to make nominations when the Congress explicitly vests in him the authority to make those nominations (since Congress could vest that authority with the courts, or with heads of executive departments).

Since this authority is incompatible with the phrase that grants authority to the president to make recess appointments due to a contradiction, this renders the entire section 2 of article 2 of the Constitution invalid. Thus, since there no nomination powers explicitly granted to either the Congress or the President, or heads of executive departments, or to the courts, then by the Constitution, those powers not specifically granted to the Federal government will devolve upon the states and it is the states' right and responsibility, therefore, to elect those inferior officers as necessary.

Which, I think was the true framer's intent, since no agent of government should be allowed to represent the people without the explicit consent of the people through states' rights.

So, if Article II, section 2 is to remain valid, either the power of Congress to vest nomination power with the Executive or Judicial branch is unconstitutional, or the power of the Executive to act without Congressional consent is unconstitutional. I'm inclined to believe the latter is unconstitutional, since it is better to have representatives of the people making nominations to government, rather than representatives of government (the executive branch) making nominations for itself without the advise and consent of the People through Congress.

In fact, Congress really has no right to surrender this power if we are to be true to the original framers' intent. Thus it must be that the presidential authority to make recess appointments is unconstitutional.

Of course, the next excuse the president will say is that it is important that he makes the nomination because it is "war-time". This is exactly the situation the framers were trying to protect the people from.

The president lied to Congress to convince them to surrender their ability to control war powers of the president by voting unanimously to surrender it. Then, the president makes an unconstitutional decision to steal power from the Congress (which they are constitutionally-bound to prevent) in order to make appointments during their vacation. And the president justifies this by claiming that it is "war-time".

Is this not the same sort of thing Hitler did as he slowly usurped the autonomy and sovereignty of the people he was democratically elected to represent when he justified tyranny and dictatorship in the name of "national security" (terrorism), "co-prosperity" (CAFTA), and "lebensraum, or 'breathing space'" (Iraq with no WMDs)?

But, in defense of Congress, to be fair, they did try to reach out and compromise with the president to avoid having to make Constitutional changes when they suggested bi-partisan consultation among Congress to create a pool of potential nominees from whom the president could choose, thus leaving both Congressional authority and the president's authority intact in section 2, Article II of the Constitution.

But this president wasn't having any of it. Instead, he decided to defy Congress and go over their heads, ignoring them. Clearly, the only way for Congress to retain their Constitutional power is to make an uneasy alliance with the Supreme Court in order to get the presidential authority clause stricken from the Constitution.

I wonder how John Roberts fits into this situation as someone who may sit on the bench. Is he in favor of limiting executive power and returning proper powers to Congress by eliminating the contradiction in Article II, section of the Constitution -- the tyranny clause?

Or will Congress fail to step up to the plate when it counts and confirm a friend and loyalist of the president who will vote to leave the president's contradictory tyrannical power in place?

Short of this, it would take Congress to enact a Constitutional ammendment, which could take years to fix, while leaving the lines of separation of Government power blurred and dangerously threatening to the freedom of the American people.

"With a public record like that, we can only imagine what the White House is hiding by refusing to disclose his full record." jesse Berney

hello all,

i'd suspect "...hiding by refusing to disclose his full record" is aka "spending political capital." even at the expense of us other half americans that voted the other guy. for now, we're disenfranchised, "outa-power-democrats," "fed-up-republicans," and "disconnected-independents," feelings include: disgusted--disillusioned--nauseated---perplexed.

bolton, we can do nothing about...the constitution gives this right the right, not that it is right. "spending political capital," for now. ohio may fortell the "now."

What awful thing is Bush hiding? Why can't he release ANY unclassified files Congress requests about anything?

SandyH:

I would not be concerned about your double post, because it says what millions of Americans are thinking. They are questioning why the Bushco Administration does not release files that Congress requests.

Apathy is the true enemy of democracy.

Posted by mammalicious on August 1, 2005 at 12:23 PM

How true, how true.

And I would like to thanks all the bloggers and folks that have NOT shown apathy and have gone to Ohio to canvass for Paul Hackett.

What happens if Bolton is indicted for perjury or obstruction of justice? Will Bush insist he stay until after a trial?

Or is this just Bush having a temper tanturm because the Emperor can't get his way?

It's obvious that Cheney wants to show his contempt for the world organization and make a mockery of their initiatives. He's going about it in just the right way. It should work.

Okay so a work place abuser along with an individual that lied on a confirmation document and to the Senate committee is going the represent this country at the UN.

Well our Idiot-in-Chief, you have just told the world community what you think of them: you have sent them your trash.

Just another example of how crooked George Bush is. His slumping approval ratiing shows us that at least 56% of Americans are finally waking up to the fact the BUSH is wrong for this country. To bad he was re-elected as we havew to put up with him for 3 more years. I keep thinking how much better this Country would be had the Supreme Court not stuck there political noses where it didn;t belong and put Bush in office. Gore would have continued the Budget Surplus, we wouldn;t be in a war in Iraq and our rights as citizens would not be slowly taken away from us. WE MUST get a majority in the Senate at the very least; in 2006 or this country will be in terrible trouble. We, as democrats must get our message out. Right now the Republicans have an approval rating of around 30% but ours isn;t much better. We have to show that this mess the Country is in, IS NOT the Democrats fault but lies soley in the Repoublican Party's lap.

I can see we have a example of the sort of folks who support the Bolton nomination. What a credit to the opposing party! I'm sure they are all very proud to be so well represented.

No matter how you slice or dice it, George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the slimmiest, most dishonest, creepiest wanta be President's this country has ever had.

For us liberals, George Bush represents all that is crooked about the Republican party. I am proud to be a democrat and I am equally proud to be a liberal. My party stands firm on our moral values. Those values which are so much bigger then the republican party's values. I'd rather have a Pres get a bj then one who lies and over 2,000 of our soliders have died. I feel sorry for those who think that a person like George Bush and his lying and back handed dealing in Washington are worth bringing down their party. I guess if you support those sort of values, it says alot about your lack of character. Enough said.

why do we even bother voting or signing petitions?
bush is gonna do what he wants to do and God help the man who gets in hi way. Democracy? Hah!

I am tired of being left out. I want a president that can represent all of the people. This president represents a small percent of Americans. We really need to rise up to this foolishness!

"You ... IDIOTS!!! ...you liberal spunkmiesters... LOSERS!"
Posted by liberalsworstnightmare on August 1, 2005 at 02:15 PM

you types confirm my suspicion...if you're not spinn' & divertin' to get us to agree to your views, like the bolton-nomination, then resort to profanity & name-callin' ...go for it. i remember, simple as it is, "sticks 'n stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." my suspicion, next comes the sticks and stones?

US CONSTITUTION
Article II, Section 2:

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: “but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.” (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PHRASE BECAUSE IT PLACES A CONDITION UPON EVERYTHING BEFORE IT THAT CONGRESS, AND CONGRESS ALONE, CAN GIVE THIS POWER. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET THIS POWER.)

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

At no time is it explicit that Congress surrenders its right to vest nomination power in whoever it wants to choose when Congress goes on vacation, whether it is a head of an executive department, the president, or the courts of law. Congress never surrenders this right and constitutional duty if it is working hard and protecting the separation of powers.

Clearly this last part is an ambiguous and contradictory and confusing part of this section of our Constitution that can be used by arrogant and immoderate presidents to steal power that Congress was intended to possess.

Since our Constitutional framers were trying to protect Americans from immoderate and intemperate presidents, and guarantee faithfulness to the idea of poular sovereignty, clearly this last section must be unconstitutional.

Wouldn't it make us all safer if we could be certain that our Federal Government doesn't intrude on our rights by making decisions that the people should be making through our representatives in Congress?

"why do we even bother voting or signing petitions?"
------------
I was registering people to vote about a year ago at an outdoor street festival. I had someone ask me why they should bother to vote. I told them that, whether or not their vote decides the election, they would be doing what they could to make things better. We may not individually be able to do a lot, but we can vote. And we can look in the mirror and know that we did something to improve the situation.

How many have sacrificed for the rights of all of us to vote? I'm not just talking about the military. Civil rights marchers were beaten and killed to make sure EVERYONE had the opportunity to vote.

How long does it take? A few minutes of our time (unless you live in Ohio apparently).

It is important that this last section of Article II, section 2 be declared unconstitutional because I think that if the framers wanted a president to have to act unilaterally against what the president alone thinks is a threat, and rushes us into a war that the people don't believe is necessary, if the country survives the war, then the people would want the ability to prosecute the president for acting tyrannically. This is the last protection the people have to be able to control their president.

Certainly if the president acted rightly in the end, and the people are satisfied with his decision, then the people could vote on his pardon. This is why presidential pardon power also needs to be severely limited and put in the hands of Congress.

Without presidential pardon reform, and the elimination of the last paragraph of section 2, Article II of the Constitution, the country will countinue to be threatened from within by a Government that is not legally-bound to resist the seduction of ultimate power.

I agree something seems very sneaky bout this move. Sad to say but I am daily loosing trust in our president.

Liberalsworstnightmare - You wrote "{Dems]...held up the vote on baseless suspicion about his secret records!! Do you even realize how stupid this statement is? You declare the suspicions are baseless, but the documents have not been revealed, so how do you, or anyone outside the White House know if the supicions are baseless. Does the KoolAid bring you visions of "truth" or something?

Then you write: "We WON, YOU LOST.....PERIOD!" Did you think you won? What DID you win? What benefit does Dubya give directly to you.

You are the liberals worst nightmare because you've closed your mind and can't even feel their hands in your pockets pulling out your last couple of coins of spare change....unless you're in the top 5% of the wealthy.

Isn't this what Hitler did? This is just like when they stole the election. Why doesn't Bush just declare martial law and appoint himself to a permanent term as "Fuehrer of the Homeland". Heil Bush!

WOW - "You poll all those who went to Iraq, then Bush wins EVERY time." You sure about this? Where id you get THAT statistic, RNC?

Hey, Wow, do you know what happened to Hitler? Mussilini?. They got their ass handed to them.

"give me my money and let me take care of myslef"

Great. You can then provide your own defense, build your own highways, educate your own kids, supply your own safe drinking water, inspect your own food supply, investigate terrorist cells yourself, lock up criminals yourself, guard the border yourself, print your own money, provide for your own old age,...

Some things work a lot more efficiently when done collectively. Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society.

US CONSTITUTION
Article II, Section 2:

"by and with the advice and consent of the Senate...but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

If we look at the first part of that phrase, "by and with the advise and consent of the senate" we can see that this is a two part statement joined by "and".

First, the president can only make nominations BY THE ADVISE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE. This would suggest that the president can only choose a nomination put forth by Congress after Senators have deliberated with each other about who to choose.

Secondly, "WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SENATE" along with "but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments", suggests that only Congress can give the president the power to place the nominee in the position officially, but the whole Congress can only give this power to the president "WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SENATE", for the power to officially place the nominee in his or her position as an inferior officer of the Government can be vested in either a head of an executive department (defense, state, agriculture, transportation, etc.), the president alone, or courts of law.

Thus, it would seem that the true methodology would be for the House of Representatives to make an "up or down" vote on the acceptability of the pool of nominees, or nominee, as chosen by the Senate to be sent to the House. If this is given an "up" vote by the House, the Senate can vote to present the nominee(s) to the president. If a "down" vote is given, then the Senate is obliged to consult to create a new pool. Then, the Senate must vote on whom to give the power to officially place the nominee, between a head of an executive department, the president alone, or the courts of law.

Once this decision is explicitly made by the Senate, and thus the whole Congress, then the appropriate agent, as designated by Congress, can officially make the decision on a nominee from a pool, or officially place the final confirmed nominee in his or her position as an inferior officer of the Government.

The whole process of nomination was meant to be run impersonally as though the nomination was a piece of legislation. The framers believed that the only way to give a nominee dignity was to be fair and impersonal.

When a president fails to follow this process and take unconstitutional responsibility on his own, then he disgraces and violates the constitution and there is no longer fairness and thus, no dignity for the nominee. The nominees deserve a fair process of nomination and confirmation. Hold Congress to their constitutional duties.

From David Sirota:

Bush Speech to ALEC Shows Importance of PLAN

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that President Bush is slated to give a major speech to the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - the group that has engineered the passage of fringe-conservative legislation in states across America. Also speaking to ALEC are former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (D-TX), and Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. This high-profile list of speakers proves two things. First, conservatives are serious about taking their battle to the states. And second, the need for the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN) to counter ALEC has never been greater.

PLAN's kickoff event is on August 16th in Seattle, and will be headlined by, among others, former Sen. John Edwards, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and former California House Speaker Willie Brown. These and the scores of legislators who have registered to attend realize that it is time for our side to fight back. Washington, D.C. may be owned right now by conservatives - but there are plenty of opportunities for progressives to win in the states.

Check out PLAN's website at www.progressivestates.org, and encourage your state legislator to attend the kickoff event in Seattle and become a part of PLAN today.

Sources:
Fort Worth Star-Telegram about Bush's speech to ALEC:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/12264020.htm
The Progressive Legislative Action Network:
http://www.progressivestates.org/

The Congress also has the power to subpoena documents and witnesses from the White House if it deems so necessary. The White House should release these documents so we can get the ball rolling and get this country back in gear. The president needs to take a leadership and not a partisanship role and stop stonewalling.

"(imagine if we had bombed the Chinese Embassy by accident when Bush was president)"

Imagine if Clinton had sent our military to invade a country that did not pose a serious threat to us, resulting in thousands of lost lives and more thousands of serious injuries, and lied about why he did it.

in the words of will ferrell "i feel like i'm taking crazy pills here." do the right-wing, relegious zealot lemmings really believe everything the "president" has to say? we caught him lying about wmd's, karl rove and now he's hiding something about bolton. i feel like bill murray in groundhog day, but my day that keeps repeating invovles bush coverup after coverup. at best bolton is an abrasive, venom spewing official. at worst he is an abusive, forceful, power grabbing official. no wonder the tyrant-in-chief had to do a recess appointment. LET'S COUNT ALL THE VOTES IN 2006!

So, if the last part of Article II, section 2, the power of the president to grant recess appointments, is not unconstitutional, then it is contradictory with earlier stipulations that only Congress has the power to make nominations. If this is the interpretation to take, then the contradiction would legally render the entire section invalid and thus, those powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government would devolve to the states and I would presume that nominations would be voted on in a format not unlike a ratification process for a constitutional ammendment.

So, if we are to choose between interpretations, the "nominee as legislation" view, or the "nominee as constitutional ammendment" view, which would be better? It would all depend probably on how fast the process needed to be.

If the process needs to be fast, then the Supreme Court must interpret the "power of the president to make recess appointments" clause to be unconstitutional. If the process needs to be slower, more deliberative and contemplative, then the Supreme Court should decide to retain the clause, but adopt the methodology of "nominee as constitutional ammendment" and engage in the nomination process as such.

But this could take years and years and years, so I would think that the Supreme Court should decide that the "power of the president to make recess appointments" clause is unconstitutional.

Maybe Bush sees this as his last chance to completely demolish our standing in the world community. Hey, he's got to make sure we're universally reviled or maybe the next administration will be able to repair some of the damage he's done. Bolton as UN Ambassador should do it.

Democrats have plenty of good ideas on how to strengthen our country. All ya have to do is ask!

Really, about all the president is constitutionally obligated to do when a vacancy arises is to direct the Congress to begin the nomination process.

After reading Wow's lengthly retort, it sounds like he really is upset about the democrats or just maybe he's not as bright as he thinks he is. His words and reasoning is straight from Rush and we all know what sort of a crackpot Rush is. I think Wow is a looney tune and wouldn't take too much of what he is saying seriously...it fact as I read it, it did make me laugh. One thing is for real, and this he can't deny - his president is a lying, slime ball who has 2,000 dead soliders blood on his hands over a lie. Now if he wants to support this asshole more power to him. He can go back to his party and support those type of people too. As for me, I'll keep my bumper sticker on my car which shows the White House all lite up at night and it says - The lights are on but nobodys home......

Hey Alex, here's what Alixander Hamilton (which a constitutional scholar like you will know wrote the constitution) has to say about the nomination process. Click my name for the link to federalist papers 66, which he wrote. I copied and pasted the pertinant bit.

"It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. They might even entertain a preference to some other person, at the very moment they were assenting to the one proposed, because there might be no positive ground of opposition to him; and they could not be sure, if they withheld their assent, that the subsequent nomination would fall upon their own favorite, or upon any other person in their estimation more meritorious than the one rejected. Thus it could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy."

Now will you let it go?

That's not what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Hamilton wanted no moderation in the glory of the executive. Essentially, Hamilton wanted a King of America. He may have writted the last clause in the Constitution sneakily, we probably won't know exactly how it got into the Constitution. But we do know that it contradicts explicit Congressional authority written in the same section.

Either Congress must proceed in the nomination process, once directed by the president (he is allowed to ask Congress to begin the nomination process), in a form commensurate with its functioning (in other words, it treats nominees like legislation), and then assign the nominees official placement as an inferior officer of Government, OR the clause, being contradictory with a direct and explicit expression of Congressional authority, must therefore be invalid, rendering the whole section invalid.

In this case, having no sound and explicit expression of the process by which to engage in a nomination process, those powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government will devolve upon the states. In this case, I imagine a nominee would be submitted to the states in the same way a Constitutional ammendment would, requiring ratification procedures specified in the Constitution.

Since it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution that Congress surrenders its nomination authority when it votes to recess, the assumption cannot be made that this authority goes to the president, unless Congress specifically asks the president to make a nomination in their absence, in which case no confirmation process is necessary. This may have been the concession to Hamilton you were referring to in Federalist no. 66.

The executive is allowed to make proclamations when it comes to nominations if Congress expressly gives the president this power upon recessing. Assuming that Congress does this, the president can make appointments until Congress reconvenes, in which case, the duration of the term served by his appointees will not outlast the end of the Congressional term.

Thank you for making my point.

But my point is that a recess vote by Congress is not an implicit authorization for the president to make a recess appointment, unless the Congress explicitly voted to give the president this authority by Congress (both the Senate and the House).

When the same party controls both the House, the Senate, and the White House, then it is easy for the president to just ask the Speaker of the House to call for a vote on the House floor in order to get both a recess vote and a nomination authority vote.

If this vote passes, then the Senate Majority leader can call for a vote on the Senate floor in order to get both a recess vote and a nomination authority vote.

When both the Congress and the House vote affirmatively for both, THEN the president can make a recess appointment.

If there is no full agreement among the House and Senate on granting the nomination authority to the president, then this is a de facto retention of Congressional power and the president cannot make a recess appointment. That is why it is easier to make recess appointments when the president's party controls Congress -- but only if both chambers of Congress vote to give the power to the president. If they don't, then the president does not have the authority.

Until Congress (now in recess) gives the president fair Recess Nomination Authority, after voting for it in both chambers of Congress, the president is not authorized to make recess appointments, and Mr. Bolton is not authorized to begin his new job.

Let's call this like it is. One idiot sent another idiot to the UN to do a job he can't do. Bolton has no respect for anyone, underhanded, and the UN knows this. It actually makes matter worse because nobody at the UN will want to deal with him. Nobody will trust one word he says, nor will they trust him enough to confide anything of importance to him. They wont let him try to bulldoze his way around either! Without a doubt, Bush shows himself again as being the dumbest president in the history of the US. I wonder if all that cocaine and booze he consumed when he was youger may have been the cause of his daftness?

Anyhow, mark my words, Bolton will be the laughing stock at the UN, and an imbarasment to the people of the US.

So, really, the question of the day should be what is Bush trying to hide by sticking Bolton in the UN Ambassador slot?

Posted by monicasmith on August 1, 2005 at 11:05 AM

Interesting take. Is Cheney trying to remove Bolton from the grand jury's reach with diplomatic immunity? Probably following Gonzales and Roberts advice.

Yes, let's get back to the good ole DLC Clinton days of Welfare Reform(WE REALLY SHOULD FOCUS ON CORPORATE WELFARE ANYWAY, RIGHT?), NAFTA(AS OPPOSED TO CAFTA?), Free Trade, Getting rid of Dictators in Kosovo (imagine if we had bombed the Chinese Embassy by accident when Bush was president)(NO, INSTEAD WE BOMBED IRAQ INSTEAD OF OSAMA), using the Oval office for your own personal pleasure(WELL, SEEING AS BUSH RUNS AMOK AND STONEWALLS THE PRESS AND PUBLIC ON ACCOUNTABILITY...I'D SAY HE WAS HAVING QUITE A BIT OF PLEASURE), then as the Chief Law Enforcement officer of the nation lying in court about it, (GOOD THING GWB HAS REFUSED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH FOR ANYTHING THEN, HUH, EVEN REGARDING 9/11?)then lying to the public about it in a planned declaration(LIKE THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS?), while all of your friends and the governor of your home state were convicted of felonies in which you may or may not have been involved(INSTEAD EMPLOY ALL YOUER DADDY"S PALS THAT WERE PARDONED FOR THEIR ROLE IN IRAN-CONTRA) , Lets have a man in office that would lie to his wife and kids, and then say its not important. (NO, MUCH BETTER TO HAVE ONE LIE TO ALL THE WORLD AND THEN NEVER ADMINT HE WAS WRONG)

The Democrats are mad because they have become the status quo big government, religious bashing(CHRISTIANS ARE PERSECUTED? SINCE WHEN, CHARLEMAGNE)?), and even racist party(HAS BUSH EVER CLEARED HIS SCHEDULE TO ADDRESS THE NAACP?) who wants people to be dependent on government and not themselves(MUCH BETTER TO JUST HELP THE CORPORATIONS WITH GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS). Its okay to help, but while you help you must teach people to help themselves too. Our national governments and state governments are too big. They do so much(LIKE INTERVENE IN A PERSONAL RIGHT TO DIE DECISION?), how in the hec can we expect them to protect us from aggression, which is one of their main purposes.

Hey...WOW...tell me, what would you have said if you had to sign a loyalty oath to see Clinton speak? or Gore? or Kerry?

Anyhow, mark my words, Bolton will be the laughing stock at the UN, and an imbarasment to the people of the US.

Posted by Will_Matney on August 1, 2005 at 07:09 PM

Will__Matney, same kind of reasoning that sent that junk heap of a old space shuttle into space even when they acknowledged it wasn't working right. We'll show the world we can make it work?

Same kind of logic that sent 180,000 troops into Iraq without body armour and unfortified Humvees. We'll show the world.

Same sort of logic that says if creationism doesn't fit into the definition of sciene, change the definition of science. We'll show the world.

The Republicans are trying to force second rate standards on all facets of our lives...and think they can do it to the rest of the world, too. Bolton's unsuitability for the job is so obvious, there's no way he will have any influence.

Where has America's greatness gone? When did the Republicans decide this country could survive with less than the best? Excuses, excuses is all we get. It's the story of George W. Bush's life.

The Bolton appointment is no surprise. You can recall any number of lobbyists and criminals appointed by Bush. Ex: Elliot Abrahms, lied to Congress, Pardoned by Bush I, Appointed by Bush II.

I am quite disappointed with how the Democratic party is operating. It's a mess! Outside of e-mails asking people to fork out money, there is no communication or support. I want to put lawn signs in my yard with pictures of Bush holding hands with the Saudi Prince. Can I get the Dems to allow me to use one of the photos from their cashe? Nope. They expect me to cough up $200 to the AP to buy a lousy photo. You would think that the Democratic Party would love for average citizens to slam Bush, but they offer no help whatsoever.

It actually makes matter worse because nobody at the UN will want to deal with him. Nobody will trust one word he says, nor will they trust him enough to confide anything of importance to him. They wont let him try to bulldoze his way around either!
Anyhow, mark my words, Bolton will be the laughing stock at the UN, and an imbarasment to the people of the US.

Posted by Will_Matney on August 1, 2005 at 07:09 PM

Will,

I wish I could believe this, but other countries FEAR angering Bush and his buddies, because of the retaliation he would cause them, so they will suffer in quiet, while this maniac DOES embarass our country. But after how they feel about us because of BUSH, it can't get much worse.

And for what it is worth, Tralfas,

You been drinking the Koolaid again. Dems never said they are for "Universal" Health Care. They said "Everyone should have health care" which is quite different. Did you ever read Kerry's plan for it, prior to the Election? I thought not.

And the NEA (largest National Educational Association in America), has been against NCLB since day one, when it became obvious it not only was underfunded, but that it put the burden on schools of teaching for Testing, not teaching for education. Ask your teacher friends and relatives how they feel about it. You will be surprised ! (if you have an open mind enough to do so)!

You would think that the Democratic Party would love for average citizens to slam Bush, but they offer no help whatsoever.

Posted by TomElter on August 1, 2005 at 09:41 PM

The purpose of the DNC is Not to Slam Bush, nor any other Republican. It is to help Democratic candidates build a platform in a postive manner. The 'anybody but Bush" theory did not work last time, and will not win now.

May I suggest you go into Barnes & Noble website, and buy "Don't think of the Elephant", by Lakoff.

Here is a manual that tells what Democrats have to do to win.

Work hard, but work smart.

All this show is how afraid Georgie is of John Kerry and the other Senate Democrats. I compare Georgie to Hitler. John Kerry is the modern day George Washington. JOHN KERRY WILL SAVE THIS COUNTRY. JOHN KERRY WILL BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT. John Kerry is the only person in Washington who has the guts to be President. Everybody else is too spineless. Especially Georgie.

Dean: Bolton Appointment Another "Abuse of Power"

News from the DNC:

Washington, DC - Today, in an unprecedented move, President Bush announced that he would use a recess appointment to install his embattled nominee John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations - over the objection of Senate Democrats and many Republicans. The appointment comes amid unanswered questions regarding Bolton's involvement in an ongoing State Department probe about the use of false intelligence.

Bush's decision to circumvent bipartisan opposition to Bolton is another example of the White House's willingness to abuse their power and silence critics in an effort to reward loyal political allies, even at the expense of America's international stature and national security. Bolton has aroused significant bipartisan opposition in the Senate because the White House repeatedly stonewalled specific, legitimate requests from senators for access to Bolton's employment records at the White House and the State Department. Bolton attracted greater criticism last week when it was revealed that he had failed to report on his Senate questionnaire that he was questioned by the State Department Inspector General probing the use of false intelligence data in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement and sharply criticized President Bush's recess appointment of Bolton to the United Nations:

"In a truly arrogant move, President Bush abused his power by refusing to provide documents to answer legitimate questions about John Bolton and our national security, and his use of the recess appointment for one of the most important and sensitive posts in international diplomacy is troubling," said Dean. "Bolton is the next in a line of Bush nominees who have had their integrity called into question because of this President's continuing failure to fulfill his constitutional obligation to be honest and forthright with the Senate and the American people. By moving unilaterally to overrule the Senate and appoint a nominee who is being dogged by significant questions about his integrity on intelligence matters, Bush has reduced our nation's ability to cooperate with our allies on the war on terror."

Dean: Bolton Appointment Another "Abuse of Power"
News from the DNC: Posted by PamB on August 1, 2005 at 10:01 PM

pamb,

pardon me for repeating, it's aka spending his "political capital." the bolton ride is a done deal. looking fwd, the 2006 elections could damper w's "...capital" or 2008 could expunge it. "so, what's in your wallet?" if interested, scrollup to my earlier "Posted by america1st on August 1, 2005 at 01:09 PM" ...comments invited.

When the same party controls both the House, the Senate, and the White House, then it is easy for the president to just ask the Speaker of the House to call for a vote on the House floor in order to get both a recess vote and a nomination authority vote.

If this vote passes, then the Senate Majority leader can call for a vote on the Senate floor in order to get both a recess vote and a nomination authority vote.

When both the Congress and the House vote affirmatively for both, THEN the president can make a recess appointment.

If there is no full agreement among the House and Senate on granting the nomination authority to the president, then this is a de facto retention of Congressional power and the president cannot make a recess appointment.

That is why it is easier to make recess appointments when the president's party controls Congress -- but only if both chambers of Congress vote to give the power to the president. If they don't, then the president does not have the authority.

Technically speaking, the Congress can probably vote on a case-by-case basis exactly which nominees it will grant the president recess powers to nominate.

Also more technically-speaking, Congressional minority parties will actually have the ability to filibuster this vote too, on a case-by-case basis if they wanted to.

Congress was always intended to have the last say in these matters. This is the idea of popular sovereignty -- the will of the people -- expressed through its elected representatives and senators.

It would be unthinkable for any party, or one Senator, to surrender Congressional power over the executive by invoking the "nuclear option", or a will to change the rules of the Senate to allow the president to take control over the Senate without otherwise having this authority. Congressional duty mandates that this power is not relinquished, except after expressed explicit consent following a fair vote.

"Wow" wrote earlier, questioning whether a poor, starving, homeless person would care about Rove or Bolton.

Just because a person may be without money, without food, and without a home, does not mean that they are without sympathy, empathy, intelligence, and self respect. They may not have the access to information and the opportunity to know about Rove and Bolton, and how this administration's policies have harmed people at home and abroad. However, if they knew, I have no doubt that a poor, starving, and homeless person would still be able to find room in his heart for those who have been harmed -- which is more than can be said for too many who have have more than enough money, too much food, and their choice of homes and, therefore, cannot feel the pain of others.

wow...Bush's lie got us into war in Iraq, where we did not need to be. The rationale that he was a threat was false, as stated months prior by Rice and Powell...

February 24, 2001: "Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capacity with respect to weapons of mass destruction," says Secretary of State Colin Powell. "He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

July 29, 2001: "We are able to keep his [Saddam's] arms from him," NSC advisor Rice tells the media. "His military forces have not been rebuilt."

How did Bush, if your version is correct, then allow Saddam to build up to be such a threat between then and the time we invaded?

NCLB, it has already been pointed out, is a failure. Students are taught to take the test that determines the schools' next years' funding. What do you think they are learning? Now, Bush says he's all for having ''intelligent design'' in classrooms! Yes...teach kids that and leave them farther behind! Or will they put warning stickers on the Bibles that what is contained within are just ''theories?'' What do you expect from a ''c'' student who thinks the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood of Noah? UGH!

Your gov't funded corporate welfare, that you seem fine with, does NOT create jobs...it gives incentives to ship them overseas (and soon south of the border.) while continuing to make it easier for COMPANIES to declare bankruptcy, yet not requiring them to change how they run things in order to keep them out of bankruptcy again in the near future.

Fox News, being "fair and balanced," ran an article on their website this morning detailing Clinton's recess appointments. Why is it that every time Bush does something, Bill Clinton gets slammed?

Clinton had no choice but to use the recess appointment when he did. Jesse Helms and his cronies held up every possible nominee of Clinton's, forcing Clinton to use the recess appointment. Bush has to use it because he doesn't want to hand over documents. There must be something darn good in them...

If Bolton is as bad as we say he is (and I think he is), he will make a fool out of us at the UN. Just what we need when our popularity throughout the world is low.

Bill Clinton isn't getting slammed. I think they're just pointing out the hypocrisy so rampant in this matter. It seems that there is a very vocal portion of the American population that rushes in to bash President Bush every time he sneezes, yet ignores the fact that very often Clinton and other Deomcrat presidents or lawmakers have done exactly the same thing.

The fact of the matter is, recess appointments are done all the time:

G.W. Bush: 110 recess appointments
Clinton: 140 recess appointments
George H.W. Bush: 77 recess appointments
Reagan: 240 recess appointments

So it seems that the only problem here is that a Republican president exercised his powers under the Constitution to fill a vital post. I guess it's only allowed if a Democrat is sitting in the Oval Office?

DaveL...you didn't read the piece on Fox News. It talked about how Clinton gave recess appointments to his suppossed campaign contributors, etc. So of course he was slammed. To legitimize your argument, you bring up the actual number of Bill Clinton's recess appointments. And that is exactly my point - members of the Right will demonize Bill Clinton until the day he dies, but when it satisfies their own arguments, they'll run around saying, "Well, Clinton did this..."

Seems a bit of wrong information is being posted so here are a few facts.

Someone stated it was illegal for the President to make this nomination because Congress didn’t give him permission. That is false. Congress, both the House and Senate, have given the President the approval to make nominations to many different post, which the Ambassador to the UN is one of them.

Here is the House report with a complete list of every post in the Government that is either an appointment or nomination granted by Congress. This is a huge 234 page document and the UN appointment is listed on page 119. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/index.html

Here is the Senate reference for nominations that gives you facts instead of opinions. http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Nominations_vrd.htm

There is also a question about recess appointments and a lot of inaccurate information being posted on that also. Here again is an accurate source from the Senate website about recess nominations instead of inaccurate opinions.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf

Some have also stated that The House of Representatives is someway involved in reviewing these nominations or confirming these Presidential nominations and again that is false. This was even after these people posted the exact wording of the Constitution that stated ONLY the Senate is involved in either giving or denying Consent to these Presidential nominations.

Even after the facts in Constitution it seems also there is a lot of wrong information continues to be posted about opinions on how this Senate Consent process should work instead of the facts. The example is that the House is any way involved after grant the President approval to make an nominition is a prefect example.

Heck, I 100% agree with some questions about Mr. Bolton background and agree that these Senators should not give their Consent if they don't feel comfortable with any nomination the President does. Many Senators have stated they can’t give their consent to this particular nomination and I 100% agree they shouldn’t if they feel that way. In fact any Senator feels that way, not only is it their right, but their duty and job as a Senator to do that.

Now here is where the facts and opinions have been wrong, because how do they do this?

As the quoted before, Constitution states the President makes a nomination and then it goes to the Senate for them to either give Consent or Denies Consent to this nomination. It seems many are ignoring about how Senators either give their Consent or Deny in this Constitutional process as stated exactly in the Constitution. That would be by doing something we have in this democratic society of ours called Voting that the Senate is suppose to do. Now if there has been a breakdown in this Constitutional process so far, it has been by the Senate refusing to do their job and duty as Senators which is to VOTE on whether to consent or deny this nomination. This happened when President Clinton was in office also and it is wrong for those Senators not to vote also.

It is going to take money and a lot of it to fight the Republican Neo-Con brigade. Howard Dean is asking for $20/month from each of us, that's all, $20.00 a month from several million dedicated Democrats can and will make all the difference in the world. Tired of all this bull that Bush is putting out? I am, and I live in Texas and I am sick of George W. Bush. Gov. Dean can have my $20/month to fight this same type of nonsense and outright arrogance by George Bush and his appointment of John Bolton. I am sick of his "I don't have to answer to anyone" attitude. Let's show him who he answers to, the Citizens of the United States. Just $20/ a month multiplied by just 10 million democratic citizens equals $200 million per month!!! If only ONE million will pay $20 a month, that's still $20 million a month to fight this Republican onslaught.

"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Alexander, this is where the Constitution grants the President the authority. Clinton used it over 140 times in 8 years.

If there is an obstructionist Senate, it gives the President the power to temporarily break the logjam and wait until the next Senate to start the process over again. Ted Kennedy said exactly this in defense of Clinton in 1999. The appointment can never outlast a President's term.

Bush justifies his recess appointment because he couldn't get an "up or down vote" on his appointment in what he considered to be a timely manner. This lack of up or down vote is clearly something the Republicans are going to use to stifle discussion and try to make Democrats look partisan. I do not remember the exact number but during the Clinton administration, Jessie Helms refused to even hold hearings on at least 30 ambassdor posts. These candiates were not only denied a "up and down vote in a timely manner" they couldn' t even get a committee hearing so that thier nomination could go to the Senate floor.. I think it is time we remind the American people of this, because it is a way to demonstrate that by asking questions and engaging in debate we are not being partisan but our Senators are doing thier jobs.

Partisan is when you refuse to even hold the hearing on the nominee. This was also done with Judical appointments. I think the DNC needs to come up with the exact number of Judical and Diplomatic appointments that were held up during the Clinton years and really publicize them to show the difference between being partisan and as the Republicans were and trying to make sure that we have Judges and Ambassdors that reflect the values of all Americans, not just the right. Although I did not vote for the man and believe he was never actually elected- as he is in office he does have an obligation to remember that he is suppossed to govern with the interests of the whole country in mind not just his supporters.

Okay so a work place abuser along with an individual that lied on a confirmation document and to the Senate committee is going the represent this country at the UN.

Well our Idiot-in-Chief, you have just told the world community what you think of them: you have sent them your trash.

Posted by J on August 1, 2005 at 01:56 PM

Bill Clinton is going to the UN?????

Personally I think we just need to look at why one of our greatest leaders in history, George Washington Left and see why everything is slowly falling apart. He pretty much spelled it all out in this little part of his farewell speech, Washington knew parties were a bad idea because they allowed men to build of tower of power from within thier own parties to then later excert it on the rest of those who might oppose them. Have a Look:
"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property."

No wonder he left. He knew over 200 years ago that we would, eventually screw it up and nobody would do anything about it. Kind of ironic really. Real question is how do we take his warning and fix this mess? I've got afew ideas but we've become such a centralist nation that I highly doubt anyone would even think of implementing such ideas.

The president does have the right to appoint a nominee using a recess appointment if he so chooses I just wish he hadn't done so. This just shows that there is no integrity in the man and sneakiness is his style. I just hope he dosn't do this with his recent supreme court nominee. Can he do that, can he just say to Roberts your on the bench here is your gavel? Can he use a recess appointment to install Roberts?